Increased Prolonged Sitting in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Within-Subjects, Accelerometer-Based Study

Background: Social distancing measures designed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic can restrict physical activity, a particular concern for high-risk patient groups. We assessed rheumatoid arthritis patients' physical activity and sedentary behavior level, pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life prior to and during the social distancing measures implemented in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Methods: Post-menopausal females diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis were assessed before (from March 2018 to March 2020) and during (from 24 May to 7 July 2020) social distancing measures to contain COVID-19 pandemic, using a within-subjects, repeated-measure design. Physical activity and sedentary behavior were assessed using accelerometry (ActivPAL micro). Pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life were assessed by questionnaires. Results: Mean age was 60.9 years and BMI was 29.5 Kg/m2. Disease activity ranged from remission to moderate activity. During social distancing, there were reductions in light-intensity activity (13.0% [−0.2 h/day, 95% CI: −0.4 to −0.04;p = 0.016]) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (38.8% [−4.5 min/day, 95% CI: −8.1 to −0.9;p = 0.015]), but not in standing time and sedentary time. However, time spent in prolonged bouts of sitting ≥30 min increased by 34% (1.0 h/day, 95% CI: 0.3 to 1.7;p = 0.006) and ≥60 min increased by 85% (1.0 h/day, 95% CI: 0.5 to 1.6). There were no changes in pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (all p > 0.050). Conclusions: Imposed social distancing measures to contain the COVID-19 outbreak were associated with decreased physical activity and increased prolonged sedentary behavior, but did not change clinical symptoms sitting among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Increased Prolonged Sitting in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Within-Subjects, Accelerometer-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing measures designed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic can restrict physical activity, a particular concern for high-risk patient groups. We assessed rheumatoid arthritis patients' physical activity and sedentary behavior level, pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life prior to and during the social distancing measures implemented in Sao Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Post-menopausal females diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis were assessed before (from March 2018 to March 2020) and during (from 24 May to 7 July 2020) social distancing measures to contain COVID-19 pandemic, using a within-subjects, repeated-measure design. Physical activity and sedentary behavior were assessed using accelerometry (ActivPAL micro). Pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life were assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: Mean age was 60.9 years and BMI was 29.5 Kg/m2. Disease activity ranged from remission to moderate activity. During social distancing, there were reductions in light-intensity activity (13.0% [-0.2 h/day, 95% CI: -0.4 to -0.04; p = 0.016]) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (38.8% [-4.5 min/day, 95% CI: -8.1 to -0.9; p = 0.015]), but not in standing time and sedentary time. However, time spent in prolonged bouts of sitting ≥30 min increased by 34% (1.0 h/day, 95% CI: 0.3 to 1.7; p = 0.006) and ≥60 min increased by 85% (1.0 h/day, 95% CI: 0.5 to 1.6). There were no changes in pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (all p > 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: Imposed social distancing measures to contain the COVID-19 outbreak were associated with decreased physical activity and increased prolonged sedentary behavior, but did not change clinical symptoms sitting among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Modelling the potential health and economic benefits of reducing population sitting time in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Strong evidence indicates that excessive time spent sitting (sedentary behaviour) is detrimentally associated with multiple chronic diseases. Sedentary behaviour is prevalent among adults in Australia and has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Estimating the potential health benefits and healthcare cost saving associated with reductions in population sitting time could be useful for the development of public health initiatives. METHODS: A sedentary behaviour model was developed and incorporated into an existing proportional, multi-state, life table Markov model (ACE-Obesity Policy model). This model simulates the 2019 Australian population (age 18 years and above) and estimates the incidence, prevalence and mortality of five diseases associated with sedentary behaviour (type 2 diabetes, stroke, endometrial, breast and colorectal cancer). Key model inputs included population sitting time estimates from the Australian National Health Survey 2014-2015, healthcare cost data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2015) and relative risk estimates assessed by conducting literature reviews and meta-analyses. Scenario analyses estimated the potential change in disease incidence as a result of changes in population sitting time. This, in turn, resulted in estimated improvements in long term health outcomes (Health-adjusted life years (HALYs)) and healthcare cost-savings. RESULTS: According to the model, if all Australian adults sat no more than 4 h per day, the total HALYs gained would be approximately 17,211 with health care cost savings of approximately A$185 million over one year. Under a more feasible scenario, where sitting time was reduced in adults who sit 4 or more hours per day by approximately 36 min per person per day (based on the results of the Stand Up Victoria randomised controlled trial), potential HALYs gained were estimated to be 3,670 and healthcare cost saving could reach A$39 million over one year. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive sedentary time results in considerable population health burden in Australia. This paper describes the development of the first Australian sedentary behaviour model that can be used to predict the long term consequences of interventions targeted at reducing sedentary behaviour through reductions in sitting time. These estimates may be used by decision makers when prioritising healthcare resources and investing in preventative public health initiatives.

Psychological-health correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour during the COVID pandemic.

Background: While physical inactivity is associated with adverse psychological outcomes, less is known about the psychological outcomes associated with sedentary behaviour, and specifically, its mentally active and passive forms. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a unique opportunity to study associations between these variables in light of widespread stay-at-home mandates and restrictions on outdoor exercise/social activities. Using a cross-sectional dataset acquired during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, we examined whether physical activity and sedentary behaviour were associated with subjective quality of life (sQoL) and subjective cognitive dysfunction, and whether these associations were mediated by depressive symptoms. Methods: 658 participants (males = 169, females = 489) self-reported data on physical activity and sedentary behaviour in an online survey during May 2020-May 2021. Data on physical activity and sedentary behaviour (both mentally active and passive types) was compared according to whether it was collected during or out of a lockdown period. Regression models were used to test associations of physical activity and sedentary behaviour with sQoL and subjective cognitive dysfunction, and whether these associations were mediated by depression severity. Results: Physical activity was beneficially associated with sQoL, whereas sedentary behaviour (both total hours and the reduction of mentally active/increase in mentally passive behaviour) was detrimentally associated with sQoL. These associations were mediated by depression severity. Physical activity and sedentary behaviour were also indirectly associated with subjective cognitive dysfunction by virtue of their associations with depression severity. Conclusions: There are important differences in the psychological correlates of mentally passive and active sedentary behaviours. Our findings suggest that health promotion strategies should focus on not only increasing physical activity but also reducing passive sedentary behaviours as a means of maintaining good psychological health.

Effectiveness of an intervention for reducing sitting time and improving health in office workers: three arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, with and without a height adjustable desk, on daily sitting time, and to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, and the effectiveness of both interventions on physical behaviours and physical, biochemical, psychological, and work related health and performance outcomes. DESIGN: Cluster three arm randomised controlled trial with follow-up at three and 12 months. SETTING: Local government councils in Leicester, Liverpool, and Greater Manchester, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 78 clusters including 756 desk based employees in defined offices, departments, or teams from two councils in Leicester, three in Greater Manchester, and one in Liverpool. INTERVENTIONS: Clusters were randomised to one of three conditions: the SMART Work and Life (SWAL) intervention, the SWAL intervention with a height adjustable desk (SWAL plus desk), or control (usual practice). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was daily sitting time, assessed by accelerometry, at 12 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were accelerometer assessed sitting, prolonged sitting, standing and stepping time, and physical activity calculated over any valid day, work hours, workdays, and non-workdays, self-reported lifestyle behaviours, musculoskeletal problems, cardiometabolic health markers, work related health and performance, fatigue, and psychological measures. RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 44.7 years, 72.4% (n=547) were women, and 74.9% (n=566) were white. Daily sitting time at 12 months was significantly lower in the intervention groups (SWAL -22.2 min/day, 95% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 min/day, P=0.003; SWAL plus desk -63.7 min/day, -80.1 to -47.4 min/day, P<0.001) compared with the control group. The SWAL plus desk intervention was found to be more effective than SWAL at changing sitting time (-41.7 min/day, -56.3 to -27.0 min/day, P<0.001). Favourable differences in sitting and prolonged sitting time at three and 12 month follow-ups for both intervention groups and for standing time for the SWAL plus desk group were observed during work hours and on workdays. Both intervention groups were associated with small improvements in stress, wellbeing, and vigour, and the SWAL plus desk group was associated with improvements in pain in the lower extremity, social norms for sitting and standing at work, and support. CONCLUSIONS: Both SWAL and SWAL plus desk were associated with a reduction in sitting time, although the addition of a height adjustable desk was found to be threefold more effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11618007.

Sit less and move more for cardiovascular health: emerging insights and opportunities.

Sedentary behaviour - put simply, too much sitting, as a distinct concept from too little exercise - is a novel determinant of cardiovascular risk. This definition provides a perspective that is complementary to the well-understood detrimental effects of physical inactivity. Sitting occupies the majority of the daily waking hours in most adults and has become even more pervasive owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for a broad cardiovascular health benefit exists through an integrated approach that involves 'sitting less and moving more'. In this Review, we first consider observational and experimental evidence on the adverse effects of prolonged, uninterrupted sitting and the evidence identifying the possible mechanisms underlying the associated risk. We summarize the results of randomized controlled trials demonstrating the feasibility of changing sedentary behaviour. We also highlight evidence on the deleterious synergies between sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity as the underpinnings of our case for addressing them jointly in mitigating cardiovascular risk. This integrated approach should not only reduce the specific risks of too much sitting but also have a positive effect on the total amount of physical activity, with the potential to more broadly benefit the health of individuals living with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease.